Ancient Hebrew biblical martial arts!

I read through that bit on the site describing what Abir Qesheth is and a relatively large part of it was stating just that. I'm not sure why there is such a strong insistence that this isn't a martial art, when that's clearly what it's supposed to be. Seems like a pointless semantics argument thrown around to avoid substantive discussion about efficacy or legitimacy.

 

Yes, you are right. I am a very casual observer. This is the first time I have posted on this forum and I only glanced over what actual statements were being made, rather than the current status on the forum. I simply see their status as less important when compared to their actual comments. Because the poster's comments still show up and the poster made them as if they had an understanding, even a basic one, of the Hebrew language I felt the need to comment on them. Also, that poster was not the only person to write as if they actually knew Jewish sources in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Judeo-Arabic. Now that it has been clarified that this is not the case I can rest on that issue.

Yes, he is essentially showing a group of students basic moves so that they can see it bit by bit. As he describes in several of his Hebrew videos he is often showing things that are often seen in real fights here in the Middle East since when one observes responses to terrorist attacks here in Israel balance, stances, and such go out the window. Like I hinted at before there seems to be two components of this discussion. 1) That there is no historical basis for Abir (i.e. no sources for it) 2) Abir is not a "martial art" (something we agree on based on what we describe on our site), and 3) whether it is effective. I think we can say that the first two points have been clarified and the 3rd point I concede that this forum will make its own decision in that area, no matter what is presented, and given that I have no problem with that I simply say here in the Middle East you have often conceal your best foot when you know that enemy may be watching. It is like the old saying goes when a Jew has something important to talk about they take it to the fields and not the shuk.

 

Actually the main points are:

1) historical basis
2)unbroken lineage/chain of transmission
3)is it effective.

2 and 3 are unproven, and I don't know enough about 1 to judge either way.

 

Did you read through the Hebrew site or only the English site. I know to the English reader it seems like semantics but that is the challenge of linguistics at times. Besides, the opposition seems to also play semantics. We say their are Jewish sources for Abir. Those who criticize us say their are not. We present Jewish sources in their original format. Those who criticize say you can't do that we can't read your sources and even we could we don't accept them just because; yet we are experts enough in your history to tell you you don't have something. Those criticize say this is not a martial arts or that it is a fake martial arts. We say Abir has never been defined by the English statement "martial arts" and that the term doesn't appear to have any proven scientific boundaries for what is and isn't a martial art in the first place (just personal opinion). We further say we accept your classification that we are not a martial arts by the standards you set in place. Those who criticize then say, no you can't do that, you are trying to be what you we say you are not and what you have never been historically self-defined as. That sounds like semantics to me but then again that is an opinion.

I read through the thread and the first claim was that there was no historical evidence to support there ever being a Jewish method of training for combat. I gave two of many Jewish sources that state the opposite so I think that first point can be closed, which was my goal in commenting from the start, since a large bulk of the posts made similar historical claims. Now we find that none of those claims were made with historical evidence or from first hand knowledge. That would be like me making historical claims about BJJ w/o me even knowing for a fact that I know BJJ history. Further, when I first posted I was told that I don't understand the word "accurate" yet I showed that I do understand the word and gave background to why it was applicable to what I was talking about.

If your argument is solely "efficacy or legitimacy" that still falls back into issue of efficient in what circumstances and legitimate to whose standards? In the ring or in a Middle Eastern ambush style attack environment? None of these things have been laid down. These things are also often never defined using a proven basis. Especially given the fact almost every "popular" martial arts used today has been called in-effective by someone who practices something else.

 

That being said.

1) So what is your standard of proof for unbroken lineage/chain of transmission?
2) Also, did you review the information provided on the Hebrew site?
3) Do you accept Jewish sources as valid witnesses to unbroken lineage/chain of transmission or do you disregard them off the bat? If so whose sources do you accept?
4) According to your own knowledge of Jewish history how far back does any Jewish culture/community have textually/ancestrally to any event or group in the past?

 

Has the main instructor any proof of who they trained under?

A Photo would be good, even just paperwork or independent eye witnesses.

One generation back is OK, but really three is a good minimum.

I've not looked at your website, but if you want to answer questions feel free to point me to the correct page.

 

That's all fine. I'm not going to challenge the historical legitimacy of your system, because I don't pretend to know anything about it.

I'm not talking about balance and stances like classical Asian forms or whatnot, I'm talking about the ability to exert force through body mechanics. This is even more important in real fights than in a dojo.

Slapping with the hands and feet looks fast and cool but is ineffective to really damage someone. Movie-fu neck breaks are just silly. Dancing around someone at double speed after they've done a half-hearted attack and leaving their arm hanging out makes it look clueless and not based in the reality of violence whatsoever.

If it's deliberately meant to look bad as some form of obfuscation, why are you here defending the efficacy of it?

 

So I read the website, it basically says if your not Jewish you won't understand.

And anyone who does criticise is anti semetic, which really really intellectually dishonest.

So the technique looks rubbish, the background is rediculous, and therefore the students self selection makes them all guillible and the website is intellectually dishonest.

Why are you here again?

 

If you look on the site that information is on the following links.

Abir Qesheth אביר קשת | Jerusalem | Abir-qesheth-israel

There are also two videos on the following link:

Abir Qesheth אביר קשת | Jerusalem | Abir-qesheth-israel

(Sorry I included just the links because I don't think I am allowed to post the actual Hebrew text.)

Again I ask:

3) Do you accept Jewish sources as valid witnesses to unbroken lineage/chain of transmission within Jewish communities or do you disregard them off the bat? If not, whose sources do you accept?
4) According to your own knowledge of Jewish history how far back does any Jewish culture/community have textually/ancestrally to any event or group in the past?

 

Actually, it doesn't say that if you are not Jewish you won't understand. It states that Jewish sources are how one determines ancient Jewish history and practices. That is no different than one saying that ancient Chinese history and practices are best understood in the Chinese. A person doesn't have to be Chinese one simply has to take the time to learn how to read the sources. Can I as a Jew explain how to read and understand Jewish texts? Yes, I can. How much time do you have on your hands and how willing are you to go through the process or learning? Do you even care? Maybe you don't and maybe there is no reason for you to care. Yet, to claim we Jews don't have something w/o a source is not comparable to me saying there is a source, here it is. If you take the time to learn how to read it then it is there. But if you know nothing about Jewish history and language then you can't claim "they don't have this or they don't have that." That is what I am getting at.

What background is ridiculous and according to whose proven standard?

Concerning why I am here because of what I mentioned before, there is accurate information about Abir on the web-site. That is what I stated from the start because I noticed a lot of in-accurate and intellectually dishonest in a number of posts so I decided that it is important for me to point it out because I have an interest.

 

No you are here obfuscating, evading and talking around the issue

Name his instructor

Name his instructors instructor

If you can his instructors instructors instructor

Period.

Everything else is throwing crap and hoping some of it sticks - that aint gonna fly here son

 

And i stand by the fact you dont know what "accurate" means and the above posts prove it....either that or reading comprehension isn't your strong suit

 

Okay. So we have closed the historical issues and all of the previous posts where historical claims were made w/o any sources were made can be ignored.

So thank you for defining what you meant. This is where I would have to disagree with you especially given that I see you are mentioning drills and things done in video in order to not hurt the student shown in the video. For example, no where is presented that Slapping with the hands and feet looks fast and cool but is ineffective to really damage someone.

If you look at my original posts I was not here trying to debating efficiency. For example, according to your standards and mine it is not a martial art, right? So we can agree on that at least. So as I mentioned from the start the historical information presented here was in-accurate. Since some of the comments had nothing to do with that topic and only claimed that there was no historical information I am content to have put that issue to rest. As I mentioned before the efficiency is going to be up the forum.

 

That lineage looks accurate to me. Did you use Google translate?

 

If it isn't claiming to be a martial art then what it is it claiming to be?

 

Greetings. You asked the above. Listed below:

Name his instructor
Awadh bin Brihim

Name his instructors instructor
Brihim bin-Hasan

Name of his instructor's instructor's instructor
Hasan bin-Muse and Awatz Li'wag

Name of his instructor's instructor's instructor's instructor
Yaaqov Maatuf-Dohh

Name of his instructor's instructor's instructor's instructor's instructor
Brihim Al-Arigi

 

According to the website, it's a "fighting technique" (but don't call it a martial art.)

 

Am I the only one who gets the feeling that he keeps claiming "it's not an martial art!" in hope that someone would disagree and call it exactly that?
It reminds on children who are fishing for something; in the current case, that someone would say: "Of course it's an MA!".

 

In short, a mesorah (Hebrew for a tradition passed down through generations) of the Maatuf-Dohh family, known in Jewish sources as Klei Milchamah, Qarav, or Qesheth, derived from a group of Jews in the ancient Jewish armies known as the Giborim. The traditions included teaching striking, locks, and kicks based on what most Jews already know in the Hebrew language and also in Jewish history. Traditional Jewish dances were used as a further method for teaching movement. The tradition included principles found in the Torah on how to train for either escaping conflict or surviving conflict and the avoidance of non-Torah based ideals.

 

Actually, that is not my case at all. If it was I would have been pulling out the various definitions of what a martial art is and using that as a way to put it in the same box.

My point is simply that it is not defined by martial artists as a martial art and it is never been internally historically defined as such. That is why most of my focus has been on the historical arguments made in this forum.